JUDGMENT : 1. - Appellants (Hargyan, Dayaram & Bhim Singh) have challenged the judgment of the court of Special Judge (SC/ST, Prevention of Atrocities) Sawai Madhopur, whereby each of them has been convicted & sentenced as under:- Under section 148 IPC-Two years' RI Under section 302/149 IPC-Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default, further 3 months' RI) Under section 326/149 IPC-Seven years' RI with a fine of Rs. 300/- (in default, further two months' RI) Under section 325/149 IPC-Three years' RI with a fine of Rs. 200/- (in default further one month's RI) Under section 3(2)(5) of-Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the Act) (in default further six months' RI) 2. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution of the appellants is as a result of a written report lodged on 28.7.97 by Ratan Lai (PW 2) at PS Nadoti (Sawai Madhopur) wherein he alleged that Samay Singh of Gopalpura village had assaulted his neighbour Samotya & persons of Bairwa. Community a few days back of which he had lodged a report against Samay Singh so Samay Singh was annoyed with him and consequently Samay Singh had come to his house on 27.7.97 and asked his wife Uganti (PW 5) about him and since he was not inside the house Samay Singh went back but with threats of dire consequence of killing him, inasmuch as in the afternoon also, Shanker & Bhim Singh both came to his house and started threatening to kill him. Ratanlal further alleged that he was at an agricultural field of one Master from whom he had the field on share basis, so he had gone to that field on his tractor alongwith driver Murari Mali (PW 3) Prabhu (husband of his sister-in-law), Battilal (his sister's husband), Pakhandi (his father-in-law) (PW 4) where Murari Mali went on ploughing the field while they went to the well for the bath, wherefrom Prabhu & Battilal both had gone towards 'nala' to ease themselves at about 7 or 7.30 but both of them were surrounded and beaten by Samay Singh, Bhim Singh, Daya, Hargyan & Shankar duly armed with lathi, Gandasi & Dharia. He also alleged that hearing the commotion, he reached the places of beating and saw aforenamed assaulters beating Prabhu & Batti with lathies, Gandasi & Dharia in a brutal manner. He also alleged that hearing the commotion, he reached the places of beating and saw aforenamed assaulters beating Prabhu & Batti with lathies, Gandasi & Dharia in a brutal manner. He alleged that besides aforenamed killers one more person was with them but whom he could not have recognised. He then alleged that upon hearing hue & cry of Prabhu & Batti, his father- in-law & driver Murari Mali had also reached the spot but they were also threatened by Samay Singh to kill them, if intervened during the beating. 4. In the report, Ratanlal stated that Samay Singh and Hargyan were duly armed with Dharia & Gandasi respectively whereas Shankar had Gandasi in his hand while the and remaining had lathies in their hands; that upon their resistance, the aforenamed assaulter ran away in a jeep standing near Gopalpura, whereupon they came near Prabhu & Batti but till then they had lost their lives in the beating. 5. On the afore written report, crime was registered at PS Nandoti and the investigation was put into motion. After usual investigation, challan was filed for offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 341, 323, 325 & 326 IPC & 3(2)(5) of the Act against present appellants and since other co-accused Samay Singh & Shankar were absconding, the investigation was- kept pending Under section 173(8) Cr.PC., before the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City who committed the case for trial to the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST, Prevention of Atrocities) Sawai Madhopur, who framed the charges against the appellants for offences Under Section 148, 302/149, 326/149 & 325/149 IPC besides Section 3(2)(5) of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty & claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and produced 24 documents in support of its case whereas the appellants produced two witnesses in their defence after they were examined Under section 313 Cr.PC. and produced two documents. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted & sentenced the appellants as indicated in first para of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. During the course of hearing, Mr. and produced two documents. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted & sentenced the appellants as indicated in first para of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. During the course of hearing, Mr. R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants contended that out of three eye witnesses, Murari (PW 3) & Pakhandl (PW 4) have turned hostile and therefore entire prosecution case rested only an the testimony of third and singla eye witness (PW8) whereas whose evidence is not to sterling worth but is replete with false statements. Hence, on such solitary evidence, no conviction can be based against the appellants. Shri Chauhan has drawn our attention to various testimonies appearing in the prosecution evidence so as to draw adverse inference against the solitary evidence of Ratan Lal (PW 2) and to hold his statement as untrustworthy besides replete with falsity not only about motive for the crime but also about his presence at the scene of occurrence and about sequence of assault or about existence of Ex.D. 2. All these versions being wrung out from the prosecution evidence would be dealt with during the analysis thereof a little later. 8. Next contention canvassed by Shri Chauhan is that though Badri Prasad (PW 7), Vishram (PW 8) & Mohan Lal (PW 9) have not been declared hostile but their evidence was heavily relied on to prove prosecution case whereas these witnesses on the contrary clearly proved absence of solitary eye witness Ratanlal (PW 2) at the scene of occurrence. Shri Chauhan further contended that in fact wireless message (Ex.D. 2) was the First Information Report, yet the prosecution suppressed the information informing the police about the incident of a cognizable offence by known assailants, thereby such suppression is fatal to the prosecution, inasmuch as the report by Ratanlal (PW 2) was belatedly lodged at the police station which was hardly at a distance of 5 kms from the village and three hours' delay has not been explained by the informant nor by the prosecution. 9. 9. Shri Chauhan also contended that the recovery of weapons (Gandasi, lathis) at the instance of the appellants are doubtful because no independent witnesses have been produced for these recovery of weapons, nor the prosecution produced any witness to prove that the weapons upon having been recovered were kept and delivered safely to the FSL which has not been exhibited, and moreover, non examination of two material witnesses, namely Samotia (neighbour) and Laxmikant SHO who had allegedly received first information & then had sent wireless message (Ex.D. 2), is also fatal to the prosecution. 10. Shri Chauhan has relied upon various decisions in support of his arguments, which we would mention and discuss a little later with a view to avoid duplicacy. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor reiterating the arguments made before the learned trial Court, has contended that the conclusions for convicting and sentencing the present appellants are totally passed on well appreciation of the credible and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution adduced on record. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record so also the impugned judgment of conviction. Before analysis of the evidence on record with reference to the rival contentions canvassed at the bar, we deem it proper to mention dictum of law laid down in the decisions cited by Shri Chauhan herein below. 13. In Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1990 (Supp.) SCC 529) the case rested mainly on the testimony of sole eye witness who was interested one hence the Apex Court held that the testimony of sole and interested witness must be wholly reliable. In that case, since conduct of sole & interested witness was found to be highly unnatural and testimony in conflict with medical evidence therefore on this kind of evidence it was held to be highly dangerous to convict as many as nine persons when there were strong circumstances showing that many of them would not have participated in the incident, hence conviction and sentence was set aside for offence under Sections 302 & 149 IPC. It was a case where the doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead body found one gunshot wound oval in shape with charred margin and there was no other injury, whereas sole interested witness PW 1 deposed that both the deceased had received gunshot injuries and fell down and she (PW 1) gave omnibus version that all other accused surrounded both the deceased and inflicted injuries whereas the doctor found four clean incised wounds with no firearm injury on Miththu, another deceased. 14. In the instant case the sole witness Ratanlal (PW 2) has been held by the trial Court as a witness of sterling worth, his testimony being cogent, convincing and reliable being consistent with the medical evidence. Hence the decision in Mangilal v. State of M.R. (supra) does not render any help to the present appellants. 15. In Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, ( 1973(3) SCC 657 ) the accused appellant was convicted for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the evidence of solitary witness. Therefore, the Apex Court held that where the witness turned hostile in court and gave a version different from one he gave to the police supporting the prosecution case, his evidence cannot be wholy discarded so as not to be available even in parts in support of the prosecution case particularly when the witness's version is at variance with the version of the accused themselves. In that case since PW 1 the solitary witness was the complainant, himself, the Apex Court held, his evidence would have to be considered with great caution and it would not be ordinarily safe to accept his interested testimony unless there is material corroboration found in the other evidence adduced by the prosecution. It was a case where the Apex Court while considering all the circumstances held that the conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed upon him by the High Court has to be sustained. This case does also not help the present appellants. 16. It was a case where the Apex Court while considering all the circumstances held that the conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed upon him by the High Court has to be sustained. This case does also not help the present appellants. 16. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, ( 1996(1) SCC 614 ) the Apex Court emphatically held that conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of a single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court, at the same time, is convinced that he is truthful witness, in that event, the court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye witness account, particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time & place when there was no possibility of any other eye witness being present. The Apex Court then held that indeed, the courts insist on the quality and not on the quantity of evidence inasmuch as it is open to the courts to record a conviction on the basis of the statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution and the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye witness nor can it be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eye witnesses. Since that was a case where three of the witnesses were produced but two of them turned hostile having the third alone and, therefore, the Apex Court held on the principles already discussed that if the remaining eye witness is found to be trustworthy, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict the accused. On the question regarding meaning of the word 'interested' the Apex Court held that a close relative who is a natural witness is not necessarily an interested witness and in fact testimony of the widow of the deceased is fully corroborated by other circumstances including the medical evidence, the conviction on the basis of her testimony can be upheld. The Apex Court also observed that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon, has no substance. The Apex Court also observed that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon, has no substance. Hence this decision as well does also not render any help to the present appellants. 17. In Badri v. State, ( 1976(1) SCC 442 ) , the Apex Court observed that oral testimony was classified in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, ( AIR 1957 SC 614 = 1957 Cr.LJ 1000) into three categories namely (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholy unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, and while there is no difficulty about the first two, with regard to the third category it observed that it is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial. The Apex Court then held that since under the Evidence Act no particular number of witnesses are required for the proof of any fact, it is a sound and well established rule of law that quality and not quantity of evidence matters, and in each case the court has to consider whether it can be reasonably satisfied to act even upon the testimony of a single witness for the purpose of convicting a person. It was a case where the author of the report Gopal had contradicted himself by disowning his report in the FIR inasmuch as the earlier version given by Patram to Gopal as to appearing in the FIR is even disowned by Patram, the Apex Court held, it was not possible to agree with the High Court that the FIR would "also lend assurance to the credibility of Patram". However, it was a case where due to serious discrepancies in the version of an only eye witness and which had thrown grave doubt about his presence at the time of shooting, his evidence was discarded and conviction was not upheld. 18. However, it was a case where due to serious discrepancies in the version of an only eye witness and which had thrown grave doubt about his presence at the time of shooting, his evidence was discarded and conviction was not upheld. 18. In Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, ( 1976(1) SCC 434 ) , the Apex Court held inter-alia (a) that reappreciation of evidence is called for where testimony of sole witness has been rejected against co-accused and on the testimony of the same person, accused was awarded death sentence; (2) that in case of uncorroborated testimony of solitary witness the court should be circumspect and should closely scrutinise the evidence to come to an unhestitating conclusion that he is absolutely reliable., (3) that on facts the witness was held untruthful with regard to the co-accused, therefore, it degrades him from the status of an absolutely reliable witness and (4) that the testimony of witness stood discredited by the FIR lodged by him at the earliest opportunity which was further contradicted by medical evidence. It was a case where the Apex Court held that in case of uncorroborated testimony of solitary witness also, the Court has to closely scrutinise the evidence to come to an unhestitating conclusion and the Court should be circumspect that he is reliable absolutely. 19. In Chuhar Singh v. State of Harayana, ( 1976(1) SCC 879 ) the Apex Court held that the fact that the prosecution has been able to examine but one eye witness to the occurrence, cannot detract from the strength of its case and what is important is not how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies. The Apex Court then held that the evidence of a single witness may sustain a sentence of death whereas a host of Vulunerable witnesses may fail to support, a simple charge of hurt, and since the case must stand or fall by the evidence of the solitary eye witness it is necessary to examine that evidence critically. According to this decision also, in case of solitary eye witness much emphasis was laid to `circumspect' with caution and to closely scrutinies his evidence. According to this decision also, in case of solitary eye witness much emphasis was laid to `circumspect' with caution and to closely scrutinies his evidence. Since in the cited case, solitary eye witness was examined by the prosecution nearly three weeks after the incident and where his testimony was discrepant and also contradicted by the FIR, the conviction based on his sole testimony was held to be not sustainable, inasmuch as the FIR though not substantive evidence being the earliest version of the incident was held to be destructive of the testimony of the solitary eye witness. 20. In State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar, ( 1994(1) SCC 495 ) , the Apex Court held that a conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary witness if his version is of sterling worth and the verdict of the court can rest even on the testimony of a sole witness, if the Court is fully satisfied that such witness is a truthful witness and his presence at the time of occurrence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was a case where murder was committed by knocking down the deceased by a car; injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent only with prosecution case; evidence of sole eye witness found to be straight- forward giving every detail of the incident; his testimony was fully corroborated by damaged car found in the premises of the accused with missing plastic strip 'Maruti 800' which was found on the spot. The Apex Court held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby reversal of conviction by acquitting the accused under the impugned judgment of the High Court was held unjustified. The Apex Court set aside the acquittal judgment of the High Court and the accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 21. The Apex Court set aside the acquittal judgment of the High Court and the accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 21. Last decision cited on behalf of the accused appellants by their learned counsel on the question of appreciation of evidence of a solitary witness for sustaining the impugned conviction is Marwadi Kishore Parmanand v. State of Gujarat, ( 1994(4) SCC 549 ) , wherein the Apex Court restated the principles for appreciation of evidence of solitary witness and held that the Court may convict if the evidence is wholly reliable, may acquit if it is wholly unreliable and must look for corroboration if it is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The Apex Court then reiterated the principles interalia (1) that the Court must take into account all the surrounding facts and circumstances prevailing at or about the time of occurrence; minor contradictions and omissions are immaterial and where evidence of eye witness is found to be consistent and substantially conforming to the version given in the FIR or case diary statement, court should not be justified to view his evidence with suspicion; (2) that different persons react differently in different situations, therefore, no hard and fast rule as to their reaction can precisely be laid down in a defined way and on facts, conduct of the eye witness in not shouting for help nor telling about the incident to anyone before making FIR is not unnatural. It was a case where the Apex Court maintained the conviction of the two appellants as recorded by the High Court with sentence thereunder and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court was held unjustified. 22. Regarding appellants' contention that material witnesses were neither examined nor produced, we are of the view that since the learned counsel has failed to state as to who could be the material witness left unnotice by the prosecution, the contention is also devoid of any merit and hence not sustainable. In Bachan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1982 CrLR (Raj.) 617) , cited by Shri Chauhan, independent eye witnesses of the occurrence though, available since had not been produced by the prosecution, in the facts and circumstances this Court held that it would be highly unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of relation witnesses. In Bachan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1982 CrLR (Raj.) 617) , cited by Shri Chauhan, independent eye witnesses of the occurrence though, available since had not been produced by the prosecution, in the facts and circumstances this Court held that it would be highly unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of relation witnesses. The ratio of this decision also does not help in advance the case of the appellants in any manner for the reasons as afore stated. 23. On the contention that when two versions are possible then one favourable to accused should be preferred Shri Chauhan cited the decision of this Court in Jaini Kayamkhani v. State of Rajasthan, (1996 RCrC 455) wherein this Court observed that where there are two sets of versions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, one which is favourable to the accused should be accepted. It was a case where the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the case; Possibility of tutuoring was not ruled out; dying declaration was not corroborated by other evidence; although many witnesses were not declared hostile, yet their evidence was discarded without rhyme or reason inasmuch as testimony of witnesses who had supported the prosecution case was full of contradictions and omissions, therefore, the witnesses were held unreliable and conviction was set aside. 24. As regards alleged abnormal behaviour, Shri Chauhan cited decision of this Court in Anna v. State of Rajasthan, (1995 CrLR (Raj.) 794 SB) , wherein the conduct of mother and son appeared to be abnormal because it appeared highly unnatural that the wife and son had guarded the dead body of the deceased in the field for whole night and nobody came to help them from the village including the relatives and neighbour particularly so when it has come in the evidence of son that he had gone to the village to fetch conveyance indicated that by that time, villagers must have come to know about the incident and thus one the over all consideration of the evidence on record, it appears that there was a discrepancy as to the place of occurrence as stated by two eye witnesses and the site inspection memo. It was a case where FIR was lodged after 16 hours of the incident and non production of the weapons in the court alleged to have been used in the occurrence or identification by the witnesses inasmuch as there was absence of report of chemical examination therefore, it caused suspicion in the prosecution case and consequently the conviction was set aside in appeal by the High Court by acquitting the accused for offence under Section 304-11/34 and 323, IPC. 25. The law is well settled that the evidence of relative witnesses is to be carefully scrutinised. If their presence is natural and probable and on objective analysis inspires confidence, then in that event merely because they are related witnesses it is not safe to discard or disbelieve their evidence. Contradictions if happen to be of minor nature would by itself be not a ground to discredit their testimony unless it does not inspire any confidence. Reliance can be placed upon the decisions in Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, (1981 CrLR (SC) 252) , The Superintendent of Legal Affairs v. Mangal Pathak, (1995 CrLR (SC) 88) , Bharwada Hirajee Bai v. Gujarat State, (1983 Cr.LJ (SC) 1096) , and State of Rajasthan Smt. Kalki (1981 CrLR (SC) 350). As regards motive, it is not a sine qua non for the prosecution that the motive must be proved, as has been laid down in Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, (1981 CrLR (SC) 252) , according to which so long as other evidence remains convincing, if it is not open to reasonable doubt, conviction may well be based on it. 26. 26. After having browsed through the dictum of law referred to above we must hold that conviction can be based on the testimony of solitary witness provided it inspires confidence and is reliable and the only caution to be taken in this regard, is that the court must be circumspact and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial, if such evidence is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, in as much as where evidence of eye witness is found to be consistent and substantially conforming to the version appeared in the FIR or case diary statement and medical evidence, wherein minor contradictions and omissions are immaterial, evidence of solitary witness cannot be viewed with suspicion if it is unimpeachable and hence should not be discarded and can torm the basis for sustaining the conviction. Even otherwise, if the solitary evidence is wholly reliable the Court may convict the accused and if such an evidence is wholly unreliable then the Court may acquit the accused. However, the Court has only to take into account all the surrounding facts and circumstances prevailing at or about the time of occurrence. That being so, in Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar (supra) the Apex Court categorically held that the evidence of solitary eye witness can be acted upon for holding the accused guilty provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstances on record and the Court is convinced that he is truthful witness and in that 1 event, the Court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye witness. Even according to the decision in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) merely because the witness has turned hostile in court giving different version that one given to the police, his evidence cannot be wholly discarded . so as not to be available even in parts in support of the 1 prosecution case. 27. As regards the contention as to the credibility of FIR and non-production of a report, Shri Chauhan cited following decisions:- 28. In Sunil Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( AIR 1997 SC 940 ) the Apex Court held that telephonic information to police station about cognizable offence recorded in daily diary book and the said information, though not mentioning names of assailants but investigation started on its basis would be treated as FIR. In Sunil Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( AIR 1997 SC 940 ) the Apex Court held that telephonic information to police station about cognizable offence recorded in daily diary book and the said information, though not mentioning names of assailants but investigation started on its basis would be treated as FIR. This case relates to the incident wherein accused persons armed with lathies and axes alleged to have committed rioting and killed deceased and attempted to kill another in the presence of only two victims and nobody else was present at time of incident. However the Apex Court held that presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn for non examination of material witnesses inasmuch as statement of injured witness recorded by Magistrate disclosing substratum of prosecution case, as a dying declaration consequent upon his survival, it could be treated only as statement recorded under Section 164 and such statement can be used for corroboration or contradictions and since there was no material in his evidence showing said statement being tutored, the Apex Court held that on such testimony of injured witness corroborated by other prosecution witnesses and also with medical evidence, the conviction of accused was proper. 29. Second decision cited by Shri Chauhan is of this Court in Ramkaran v. State of Rajasthan, (1992 RCrC 381) wherein also this Court held that information given to police about commission of cognizable offence is to be treated FIR and it cannot be said that only when police came to know about the names of assailants, then only they would treat the report as F.I.R. 30. In Heeralal v. State, (1989 RCrC 158 SB) the prosecution in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act withheld earlier first information which was an important piece of evidence and no reason or explanation was forthcoming as to why earlier information was not made or written as FIR, therefore, drawing inference, the learned Single Judge held that the investigation agency has planted Ex. 2 and it was sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution story; that Ex. 2 FIR could not be treated as first information but was a sort of statement under section 161 CrPC. 31. In Hakumat Rai v. State of Rajasthan, (1987 CrLR (Raj.) 718) , non production of report lodged at police outpost was held fatal to prosecution case. 32. 2 FIR could not be treated as first information but was a sort of statement under section 161 CrPC. 31. In Hakumat Rai v. State of Rajasthan, (1987 CrLR (Raj.) 718) , non production of report lodged at police outpost was held fatal to prosecution case. 32. We have examined the ratio of aforesaid decisions. In our view they are not attracted to the instant case. Even according to the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's Case and as held in Ram Karan's case (supra) by this Court telephonic information to police station about cognizable offence recorded in daily diary book can be treated as an FIR. It is the case of the defence that FIR (Ex.R 3) lodged by Ratanlal is not the First Information to the police station about cognizable offence but some other one which has been withheld by the prosecution, as is evident from wireless message (Ex.D. 2). We find no substance in this contention because wireless message(Ex.D. 2) was alleged to have been sent by the SHO PS Nadoti and received by Jagdish Chandra Sharma (10) (PW 10) after the information/written report was submitted by Ratan Lal (PW 2) and recorded in daily diary book about cognizable offence. Jagdish Chandra (PW 10) had received wireless message (Ex.D. 2) in the midnight at about 11.45 PM. In cross examination Jagdish Chandra (PW 10) deposed that at the time of receiving wireless message he had not knowledge as to whether the SHO has already recorded First Information or not, because till he received wireless message, the SHO had not informed him about recording of the first information. Jagdish Chandra (PW 10) in cross examination further explained that when he orally asked the SHO about nature of offence stated in wireless message i.e. murder by gun, then the SHO told him that since he had received such information at the instance of someone, he had passed on the same to his superior officers. In cross examination, on the question being put to Ratanlal (PW 2), he deposed that it was wrong to state that he had given information to the SHO at the police station at 10.30 PM to the effect that his 'Sadoo' (husband of sister in law) and `Bahnoi' (husband of sister) were killed by Samay Singh with gun. In cross examination, on the question being put to Ratanlal (PW 2), he deposed that it was wrong to state that he had given information to the SHO at the police station at 10.30 PM to the effect that his 'Sadoo' (husband of sister in law) and `Bahnoi' (husband of sister) were killed by Samay Singh with gun. He (PW 2) has also denied in cross examination to have given any information to the SHO prior to submission of his written report (Ex.P. 3). He (PW 2) in cross examination further deposed that he had gone to the police station where on being asked by Santry he informed about murder of his two relatives then Santry told him to come with written report so he went to the market situated at 1 /2 km away where from he got one paper and pen at the shop and then wrote report (Ex.P 3). 33. In our considered view, since wireless message (Ex.D. 2) was alleged to have been sent by the SHO and received by Jagdish Prasad (PW 10) after the written report (Ex.P. 3), such a message (Ex.D. 2) cannot be held to be first information report, inasmuch as, even from this wireless message (Ex.D. 2) it is clear that about 10.30 PM the police had received first information about cognizable offence of murder of two persons in relation of Ratanlal at the instance of Samay Singh and his brothers. Both the written report (Ex.P 3) and FIR (Ex.P 4) prove beyond that they were lodged at 10.45 PM at Police Station Nadoti. However, it is clear that first information was given by Ratanlal (PW 2) about cognizable offence of the murders in the impugned incident. From the evidence of Ratanlal (PW 2) it is established that when he gave information as to the murders of his two relatives, at the police station to the santry who asked him to get report in writing so he went to the market just near the police station and returned back with written report at 10.45 PM, There may be minor variation as to the time for lodging report or submitting the written report. But that by itself would not make any difference and so it is not fatal to the prosecution. But that by itself would not make any difference and so it is not fatal to the prosecution. Be that as it may, in no case, wireless message (Ex.D. 2) which was allegedly sent by the SHO to Jagdish (PW 10) upon information of Ratanlal given at 10.30 PM, cannot be treated as FIR. As per wireless message (Ex.D. 2), first information was given by Ratanlal and since Ratanlal had already submitted his written report at 10.45 PM at the police station and only after his first information, wireless message was passed on, therefore, such message (Ex.D. 2) cannot be treated as F.I.R. Written report (Ex.P. 3) was the only FIR on which the police was put into motion for investigation, and no information prior to written report (Ex.P. 3) was ever received at or made thereat as FIR at the police station hence it is not the case where earlier information was withheld. 34. Rather from the circumstances established on record viz. that principal accused Samay Singh & one more co- accused Shankar had not been arrested till date and that during trial against present accused appellants, upon consistent threats at the instance of Samay Singh & his co-accused, the prosecution witnesses being frightened of threat & incident of killing of two relatives (present deceased) have turned hostile, it proves that the chances of wrong information about nature of weapon for the murders in question, at the instance of either Santry whom Ratanlal had given first information about cognizable offence, or in connivance with the accused persons, are not ruled out with a view to take advantage subsequently for creating suspicion in the prosecution case. Even otherwise also, if the defence as contended by Shri Chauhan is admitted to be true that Ex.D. 2 was the first information then certainly as per the contents of Ex.D. 2 Ratanlal (PW 2) was the first informant, who had informed firstly at about 10.30 PM to the police and according to it Samay Singh and his brothers & colleagues had murdered Ratanlal's 'Sadoo' & 'Bahnoi'. Thus viewed, giving of first information by Ratanlal to the police at about 10.30 PM about cognizable offence was admitted by the defence if its case to treat Ex.D. 2 as FIR is accepted. However, written report (Ex.P 3) by Ratanlal (PW 2) in fact would be and certainly was FIR. Thus viewed, giving of first information by Ratanlal to the police at about 10.30 PM about cognizable offence was admitted by the defence if its case to treat Ex.D. 2 as FIR is accepted. However, written report (Ex.P 3) by Ratanlal (PW 2) in fact would be and certainly was FIR. There was no question of suppression of any information having arisen, nor according to Ex.D. 2 if it is already treated as FIR, such a suppression was fatal to the prosecution, and nor there was any inordinate delay of three hours in lodging FIR, inasmuch as no suggestion or question was put to the informant for alleged delay. The incident had taken place in killing two innocent persons who are near relatives of informant Ratanlal whose 'Bahnoi' & 'Sadoo' both brothers in law (1) husband of his sister & (2) another that of his sister-in-law, were murdered by assaulting them in a brutal manner, so also in a state of threats of dire consequences, and by murders of two family members, the informant was naturally scared of the incident and frightened being depressed by the situation of dead bodies lying in the 'nala'. These circumstances are self explanatory and in these circumstances three hours delay was not fatal to the prosecution. 35. Before we launch our scrutiny of the solitary evidence on record, we may look to the medical evidence, as to the nature of injuries and cause of death of the two deceased whose. homicidal deaths are not seriously disputed. Dr. Shriphool Meena (PW 1) at the relevant time was Medical Officer in Govt. Hospital at Nadoti, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Prabhu and Battilal on 29.7.97. As per post mortem reports (Ex.P 1 & P 2) and the evidence of Dr. Meena (PW 1), following injuries were found on the person of deceased:- 36. Prabhu s/o Monya Bairwa 1. Lacerated wound-5 x 1/2 cm. B.D on the middle of left parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound-4 x 1/2 cm. on posterior and upper aspect of left parietal region 3. Incised wound-3x 1/2 cms. B.D just 2 cm. below the injury No. 2 4. Incised wound-4 x 1/2 cms.x B.D interior aspect of left occipito parietal region just 5 cm behind the left ear 5. Incised wound-3.1/2 x 1/2 cms.xB.D just 3 cm. below the injury No. 3 6. Depresion:5x3 x 1/2 cms. Incised wound-3x 1/2 cms. B.D just 2 cm. below the injury No. 2 4. Incised wound-4 x 1/2 cms.x B.D interior aspect of left occipito parietal region just 5 cm behind the left ear 5. Incised wound-3.1/2 x 1/2 cms.xB.D just 3 cm. below the injury No. 3 6. Depresion:5x3 x 1/2 cms. just Above left ear. 7. Privation on pinna of left ear-2x 1/2 cms. Nature of injury is sharp 8. Depresion-5x3 cm. just above the right eyebrow 9. Lacerated wound - 5 x 1 /2 cmx B.D on right fronto parietal region 10. Swelling-5x4 cm. middle of the forehead N.B. Injury No. 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10 caused by blunt object and rest of injury caused by sharp object. N.B. Post Mortem Pigmentation Present on the dependent part of body (Anterior aspect) Cranium & Spinal Cord Scalp-Injury on scalp written above No. 1 to 10 Skull-Diffused clotted blood present on the forehead at middle and right side, right and left parietal region Fractures : 1. There is compound fracture of Right Parieto frontal bone. 2. There is separation of Right Parieto-Temporal suture. 3. There is separation of Right Parieto-Frontal suture. 4. There is fracture of left parietal bone at middle. 5. There is separation of left parieto- occipital bone 6. There i5 multiple fracture of left Parieto- occipital bone Membrain-was congested Brain 1. Contusion - on the part of left Parietal region of brain linear to the sagital suture. 2. Contusion -on the left parietal region of Brain in lower aspect linear to the Injury No. 6 3. Laceration -Right parieto Frontal region of the brain N.B. Clotted blood was present all over the Brain Injury (Dark Red Colour) Cause of Death & Opinion "In my opinion cause of death is Head Injury and shock due to haemorrhage and due to multiple injuries. All injuries are ante mortem." Re. Injuries on Battilal S/o Kanhaiyalal Bairwa 1. Swelling -whole of the left temporal region 2. Depresion-5x3 cm. lower aspect of left Fronto parietal region 3. Incised wound-8 x 1/2 cm.xB.D upper aspect of left Fronto parietal Region 4. Incised wound-8x1 cmx Brain tissue Depth on the middle of occipital region 5. Incised wound-7 x 1/2 cm.xB.D. upper aspect of left Parieto occipital region 6. Incised wound-6x 1/2 x Brain tissue Depth lower aspect of left occipital regionN.B. 1. Incised wound-8 x 1/2 cm.xB.D upper aspect of left Fronto parietal Region 4. Incised wound-8x1 cmx Brain tissue Depth on the middle of occipital region 5. Incised wound-7 x 1/2 cm.xB.D. upper aspect of left Parieto occipital region 6. Incised wound-6x 1/2 x Brain tissue Depth lower aspect of left occipital regionN.B. 1. Injury No. 1 & 2 caused by blunt weapon and Rest of injuries due to sharp weaponN.B. 2. Post Mortem staining present on the dependent part of body (Anterior aspect)N. B. 3. Clotted blood was present over the both nostrils. Cranium & Spinal Cord Scalp: - Injuries on the scalp are prescribed above 1 to 6 Skull:-Diffused clotted blood present on the left Parietal & Occipital region. Dark Red in colour.Fractures : 1. Multiple fractures of left temporal bone 2. Separation of left parieto temporal and fronto temporal suture 3. There is fracture of left parietal bone 4. Separation of the left parieto-occipital suture 5. Fractures of occipital bone (multiple) Membrain: -was congestedBrain : 1. Laceration: -on the part of left temporal region 2. Laceration: - on the part of the middle of the occipital region 3. Laceration: -on the region of the left occipito parietal region N.B. Clotted blood was present all over the Brain injuries. Dark Red in colour.Cause of Death & Opinion In my opinion, cause of death is Head injury & shock due to Haemorrhage and due to multiple injuries. All injuries are ante mortem". 37. As per the medical evidence, the injuries found on the persons of two deceased could have been caused by weapons-Dharia, Gandasi & lathies recovered in the instant case. Thus, the medical evidence discussed above, established beyond doubt that the two victims had died a homicidal death on.the date of incident itself. 38. As regards recovery of Gandashi from Hargayan, lathies from Dayaram & Bheem, we do not find substance in any of the contentions of the defence counsel to hold it doubtful on the grounds of having produced no independent witness to the recovery memo. Merely because motbir witnesses are police official and no other independent witness has been examined, it cannot be said that the recovery its doubtful. Merely because motbir witnesses are police official and no other independent witness has been examined, it cannot be said that the recovery its doubtful. Had the motbir witnesses other than police official been examined and did they also not support the investigation officer, in our considered view in that eventuality also the accused could not claim acquittal simply on the ground of motbirs having not supported the investigating officer because once the evidence of the investigation officer is of sterling worth and suffers from no infirmity, there is no illegality in basing conviction on such testimony because the cases are also noticed where the motbirs for some reason or other, obliged the accused. Once the accused appellants had given an information U/ s 27 of the Evidence Act when they were interrogated by Jagdish Prasad (PW 10), the requirement of independent witness as Motbir is insisted in cases of search, because the legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. Therefore, in our considered view, Shri Chauhan has a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused and the recovery document is prepared by the investigating officer then such recovery document must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. We are fortified by the dictum of law laid down in State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil, (RLW 2000(1) SC 3) and we are also of the view that If statement recorded Under section 27 of the Evidence Act leads to recovery of any articles, it is open to the investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at the time on the recovery memo prepared, inasmuch as if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down as a dictum of law that the memo so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted or doubtful and the recovery evidence unreliable. The Court cannot presume that that the police records are untrustworthy. The Court cannot presume that that the police records are untrustworthy. The police official's acts have been regularly performed and it is a wise principle of presumption and duly recognised even by the legislature. Once a police officer gives an evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused, it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. 39. Shri Chauhan has cited decision of this Court in Satyapran Dev v. State of Rajasthan, (1995 CrLR (Raj) 293) where sole witness was deceased's wife who was not believed because she did not mention the attack by gun shots in FIR, nor a single pellet was recovered from the place of incident nor a single pellet hit the sole witness when she was accompanying the deceased when shots were allegedly fired to commit murder of the deceased by gun shots, inasmuch as recovery of a pistol at the instance of the accused. in the presence of motbirs who were police employees being not independent witness was held to be not reliable and on such a recovery conviction was held to be not sustainable. 40. In view of following observations made in State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil (supra) the facts being distinguished to the present case, the decision cited by Shri Chauhan viz. Satyapran v. State (supra) does no render any help in advancing defence case- "It is for the accused through cross examination of witnesses or through any other materiais, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or atleast unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case." "'But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions." 41. Hence the mere absence of independent witness when Jagdish Chandra (10) (PW 10) recorded statements (Ex.P 22 to Ex.P 24) of the present appellants and the weapons of offence were recovered pursuant thereto, is not a sufficient ground to suspect the recovery.or to hold it doubtful. Hence the mere absence of independent witness when Jagdish Chandra (10) (PW 10) recorded statements (Ex.P 22 to Ex.P 24) of the present appellants and the weapons of offence were recovered pursuant thereto, is not a sufficient ground to suspect the recovery.or to hold it doubtful. Once the evidence Under section 27 of the Evidence Act stands proved by the investigating officer, merely motbir witness Chandrapal Singh (PW 6) (police official) in cross examination stated that the weapons recovered were brought by the Deputy Sahib from the place disclosed in memoes Under section 27 of the Evidence Act and he was standing with the accused persons In the verandah, the recovery cannot be held as doubtful and we do not find any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police, or to hold that Chandrapal Singh (PW 6) was not an eye witness of the recovery. 42. As regards FSL report, it was dated 16.6.2000 and was submitted before the trial Court on 3.7.2000 after investigating officer Jagdish Chandra (PW 10) was examined on 21.12.1999 and after statements of accused appellants Under section 313 CrPC were recorded. FSL report is admissible Under section 293 CrPC. A perusal thereof shows that the packets (nine) having been received through Tara Chand (Constable No. 766) were properly sealed bearing impressions which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded by the SP Karoli through letter No. 2294-95/10-11-97. These packets 1 to 5 were marked as A to E (Ex. 1 to Ex. 5) which contained blood smeared soil, control soil, and shawl respectively. Similarly packet No. 6 containing Dhoti, Baniyan, Kamij, currency Notes & Safi was marked as F (Ex. 6 to 10) while packet No. 7 to 9 containing Gandasi, Lathi & Lathi were marked as G to I (Ex. 11 to 13). According to examination (Serologist) therein the blood stains on Ex. 1 (from A), Ex. 3 (from C), Ex. 5 (from F), Ex. 6 to 8 & 10 (from F), Ex. 11 (from G), 12 (from H) and 13 (from 1) were found to be of human origin, but blood could not be detected in Ex. 9) from F. 43. According to examination (Serologist) therein the blood stains on Ex. 1 (from A), Ex. 3 (from C), Ex. 5 (from F), Ex. 6 to 8 & 10 (from F), Ex. 11 (from G), 12 (from H) and 13 (from 1) were found to be of human origin, but blood could not be detected in Ex. 9) from F. 43. From the evidence of Jagdish Chandra (PW 10) and FSL report it stands established that after the recovery of weapons of offence was made, the weapons and articles recovered were kept and sent to the FSL which received those articles in sealed condition. Therefore, we find no substance in the contention of Shri Chauhan that the prosecution has not examined a single witness to prove that weapons once recovered were safely kept and safely delivered to the FSL, benefit of which should go to the accused. The trial court has recorded a finding that though the prosecution had mentioned Tarachand Constable as witness in calendar but despite efforts having been made to produce in witness box to. prove delivery of recovered articles sent for chemical examination to the FSL, but it did not mean that the prosecution has deliberately withheld him. However, in our considered view, in the light of the evidence of investigating officer and the FSL report, non-examination of Tarachand Constable is not fatal to the prosecution and similarly though the FSL report does not say that blood of deceased was present on the recovered articles, but is is not fatal to the prosecution because of reliable evidence of investigating officer whose evidence could not have been shaken by the defence in this regard whereas he has proved by his evidence that the recovered articles were kept not only safely but also in a sealed condition and delivered to the FSL in safe and sealed condition. That apart, as per the FSL report, origin and blood groups of the stains on the recovered and exhibited articles could not be detected because of the blood being not sufficient for test thereby results remained inconclusive. Be that as it may, it did not mean that the recovery did not connect the appellants to the crime. 44. That apart, as per the FSL report, origin and blood groups of the stains on the recovered and exhibited articles could not be detected because of the blood being not sufficient for test thereby results remained inconclusive. Be that as it may, it did not mean that the recovery did not connect the appellants to the crime. 44. Let us advert to the following circumstances wrong out by the learned counsel for the accused appellants from evidence of prosecution witnesses to show that Ratanlal is not a witness of sterling worth as his testimony. is replete with false statements. (1) that in examination in-chief Ratan Lal claimed that 10-12 days prior to the incident Shankar & Bhim had threatened his wife Uganti (PW 5), to which she did not support Ratan Lal because she merely stated that only Samay Singh had threatened her, while she nowhere mentioned any threat given by Shankar & Bhim. (2) that in cross examination Ratanlal claimed that when Samay Singh came to his house both he and his wife Uganti were there in house while Uganti (PW 5) denied to this fact and she stated in cross examination that when Samay Singh came to her house, her husband was not at the house and only she was there. (3) that in examining in-chief Ratanlal claimed that in the evening the alongwith Pakhandi, Prabhu and Battilal went to the well at his farm while his wife Uganti (PW 5) stated that her husband did not got with Pakhandi, Prabhu and Battilal to the well, inasmuch as such a version of Uganti stood supported by Pakhandi (PW 4) who in cross examination stated that he, Prabhu and Battilal did not go on the tractor but went walking. (4) that Ratanlal claimed himself as eye witness to the alleged crime having been present at the scene of occurrence, but his wife Uganti (PW 5) claimed that he was not there because she pointed out that her husband did not go to the farm and to the well while she stated in cross examination that there was a hue and cry in the village that there were two dead bodies lying in the jungle and upon hearing such hue and cry, Ratanlal Pakhandi and the villagers went to the Nala. (5) that Mohanlal (PW 9) (complainant's uncle & not a hostile witness) stated in cross examination that on 28.7.97 Ratanlal his nephew had come to his house around 7 or 7.30 PM and asked him about two of his relatives who had gone to ease themselves, so he went with Ratanlal to search them, inasmuch as he was with Ratanlal for .about an hour but there was not a whisper in the village as to who had killed the deceased person and that it was true that Ratanlal and Pakhandi had not seen the occurrence because they were with them looking for the relatives and they had discovered only dead bodies. (6) that Badri Prasad (PW 7) & Vishram (PW 8) though supported Mohanlal's statement but they had not been declared as hostile and whose statements had been relied upon by the prosecution, while Badri Prasad (PW 7) in cross examination stated that on the night of the incident no one in village knew as to who had killed two persons and that around 8-8.30 PM Ratanlal came to hire and asked him if he had seen his relatives who had gone to ease themselves, he told no and he had not; and similarly Vishram (PW 8) in examination in chief stated that Ratanlal came to him around 8 PM and asked him as to whether two of his relatives who had gone to ease themselves had come to his place, while in the morning villagers gathered at the place where two persons were lying dead. (7) that Ratanlal in examination in chief claimed that after the alleged assault, he ran to the village to fetch the villagers, whom he collected and then brought them where Prabhu and Battilal were lying dead, and all villagers had come to the place of occurrence, but according to Shri Chauhan, PWs 5, 7, 8, 9 & DW 1 all stated that on the day of occurrence no one in the village even knew about deaths or killings of Prabhu and Battilal and this fact came into light only next day's morning when two corpses were discovered. (8) Ratanlal in examination in chief gave out sequence of the assault witnessed by hire but in cross examination when contradictions were pointed out to him, he admitted that details about sequence of the incident were not revealed to the police in his statement recorded Under section 161 CrPC (Ex.D 1) and this according to Shri Chauhan proves that his version about incident is an after-thought with view to suit the prosecution story inasmuch as it shows that he is a highly interested witness. (9) Ratanlal clearly stated that animosity was between him and Samay Singh while in cross examination he admitted that there was no animosity between accused persons and the deceased persons. So Shri Chauhan urged that had Ratanlal been actually present at the scene of incident, it is surprisingly that Samay Singh and the accused persons would have left Ratanlal unscathed and have killed his two relatives; and that similarly Samay Singh is alleged to have threatened to Kill Ratanlal, Pakhandi & Murari in case of their rescue of the deceased, again it is surprising, Samay Singh & his associates would have left Ratanlal untouched and alive. 45. In order to analyse now we shall advert to the material evidence on record i.e. statement of solitary witness Ratanlal (PW 2). We have carefully read over and considered statement of Ratanlal (PW 2). Though his statement as to the threats alleged to have been given either by Samay Singh or Shankar & Bhim to his wife Uganti (PW 5) is not corroborated by Uganti (PW 5) but it is significant to note that Uganti (PW 5) is not an eye witness and is a hostile witness, and that apart even the trial Court has based its conclusion for holding the appellants guilty for the impugned offences on the solitary evidence of Ratanlal (PW 2) and not other evidence of hostile witnesses. Ratanlal (PW 2) in examination in chief has clearly supported his version given out in his written report (Ex.R 3) which is the earliest version of the incident. The circumstances of having given threats may be relevant and material for the motive to the crime of murder of persons to whom the threats were allegedly given. Ratanlal (PW 2) in examination in chief has clearly supported his version given out in his written report (Ex.R 3) which is the earliest version of the incident. The circumstances of having given threats may be relevant and material for the motive to the crime of murder of persons to whom the threats were allegedly given. Further even in the absence of motive also, the conviction can be based on other evidence if it remains convincing because motive is not a sine qua non for the prosecution that the motive must be proved. The presence of deceased persons Battilal and Prabhu in the village and house of solitary witness besides their having gone to the field of Ratanlal and then for easing themselves in Nala (where their dead bodies were lying and where the incident of assault had taken place) is not only established by solitary witness Ratanlal (PW 2) but also even by other hostile witnesses Uganti (PW 5), Pakhandi (PW 4) & Murari (PW 3). Merely because hostile or other witnesses have not supported the solitary eye witness as to how the deceased had reached the field of Ratanlal either on foot or tractor and then to Naia, and further because Uganti (PW 5) (wife of Ratanlal) stated that Ratanlal was not there, presence of Ratanlal at the scene of incident cannot be held to be doubtful. In cross examination by defence counsel. Uganti (PW 5) admitted that she did not have witnessed the incident and whatever she stated was hearsay. Uganti (PW 5) in examination chief merely stated that her husband had not gone to bath at the well, but Prabhulal, Battilal and her father Pakhandi had gone to bath at the well. Even Pakhandi (PW 4) who has been declared hostile after he stated something during examination in-chief stated that he, Prabhu & Battilal had gone to village Kaimeri and visited house of Ratanlal (PW 2) from where they had gone to field of one Master alongwith Ratanlal who had taken Ratan Master's filed on share basis. Even Pakhandi (PW 4) who has been declared hostile after he stated something during examination in-chief stated that he, Prabhu & Battilal had gone to village Kaimeri and visited house of Ratanlal (PW 2) from where they had gone to field of one Master alongwith Ratanlal who had taken Ratan Master's filed on share basis. Pakhandi (PW 4) further stated that they had gone to ease themselves at about 7 O'clock in the evening where 2-4 persons were quarrelling amongst whom he knew Samay Singh only and those persons, had killed Battilal and Prabhu but he did not know as to from which weapon they had assaulted and as to which the accused had which of weapons. In cross examination by the public prosecutor Pakhandi (PW 5) admitted that the tractor was being taken by Ratanlal who was his son in law; that on the day of incident he was at the well of Ratanlal. The trial Court has noted demeanour of this witness and thereby put a note that the witness on being put questions used to see downward with no answer to it rather used to give out other answer than to questions. In cross examination by the PP he admitted that it is true that he was frightened of accused persons. In cross examination by the defence Pakhandi (PW 4) admitted that Prabhu (deceased) was his son in -law and Uganti was his daughter while Battilal was brother in law of Ratanlal (PW 2). Only because of two different versions detracted during examination in-chief and cross examination of Pakhandi (PW 4) about having either used tractor or having gone to the well on foot, it cannot be said that solitary witness was not reliable, inasmuch as once the evidence of solitary witness is convincing having no need to seek corroboration from hostile witnesses, such a solitary evidence cannot be thrown out of consideration. 46. 46. From the evidence of solitary witness Ratanlal (PW 2) it stands proved that he along with his father in-law (Pakhandi), Battilal & Prabhu after having reached the filed of Ratan Master from whom Ratanlal had taken the field on share basis, had gone and sat at the well where first Prabhu had washed his clothes and then Prabhu & Battilal had gone to ease themselves towards Nala situated at about 50-60 paces from the well and upon hearing hue and cry 'Maar Diye Maar Diye' from the side where they had gone to ease themselves, and towards which he moved in 10- 20 steps and then saw Samay Singh and Shankar having Dharia and Gandasi respectively in their hands while Bheem & Daya so also other one whom he did not know were having lathies in their hands. Then he further stated that he also saw that Samay Singh had first assaulted Prabhu by Dharia on his head and Hargyan had inflicted Gandasi blow on the head of Battilal and thereafter all of the assailants started repeated infliction of blows on the heads of the deceased with lathies, Gandasi and Dharia, to which he made hullabaloo whereupon the assailants threatened him of dire consequence of killing. 47. In cross examination by defence counsel Ratanlal (PW 2) stated that Samay had once come and threatened in the night and had also repeated the threats 1, 2 days prior to the incident and at that time he was inside that house and not outside when he and his wife were in the house. 47. In cross examination by defence counsel Ratanlal (PW 2) stated that Samay had once come and threatened in the night and had also repeated the threats 1, 2 days prior to the incident and at that time he was inside that house and not outside when he and his wife were in the house. In his earliest version in written report (Ex.P 3) Ratanlal (PW 2) alleged that Prabhu & Battilal who had come to him were taken by him to his field where they had gone to bathe and meanwhile Prabhu & Battilal at about 7 or 7.30 PM had proceeded to ease themselves towards Nala where Samay Singh, Bheem, Daya, Hargyan and Shankar having lathies, Gandasi & Dharia had surrounded them (Prabhu & Battilal) and started assaulting them inasmuch as one more person was there to whom he did not know and on the hue & cry of them he alongwith his father in law rushed towards place of incident then Samay singh started threatening them in case of rescue to them thereby they got frightened so kept himself away and witnessed the sequence of incident of assaults from a distance and saw that Samay Singh had Dharia, Hargyan & Shankar had Gandasi while others had lathies in their hands. He further alleged in written report (Ex.P 3) that Prabhu & Battilal had been inflicted with repeated blows of Gandasi, Dharia and lathies by the assailants and after beating, the assailants ran away. 48. The version given out in written report (Ex.P 3) not only as to the presence of Prabhu and Battilal nearby the place of beating but also as to the infliction of blows by Dharia, Gandasi and lathies at the hands of Samay Singh, Hargyan, Bheem, Daya and Shankar even after the deceased having fell down at the ground, besides in respect of material particulars for sequence of the incident, stands duly founded in police statement (Ex.D 1) of Ratanlal (PW 2) recorded Under section 161 CrPC. 49. We are conscious of the fact that though Ratanlal has named Pakhandi (PW 4) as eye witness in FIR in his statement recorded in court and Under section 161 CrPC but Pakhandi (PW 4) has been declared hostile. 49. We are conscious of the fact that though Ratanlal has named Pakhandi (PW 4) as eye witness in FIR in his statement recorded in court and Under section 161 CrPC but Pakhandi (PW 4) has been declared hostile. Merely because Pakhandi (PW 4) or other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile because of their giving a version different from one they gave to the police 1 supporting the prosecution case, their evidence cannot be wholly discarded so as not to be available even in parts in support of the prosecution case particularly when the witness's version is at variance with the version of the accused themselves. We have carefully perused the material on record and the impugned judgment of conviction. Badri Presad (PW 7), Vishram (PW 8) 1 and Mohanlal (PW 9), as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, since have not turned hostile but they were witnesses only to some of the memoes prepared during investigation rather they were not eye witnesses nor their statements were recorded Under section 161 CrPC by the police, therefore, their evidence was relied upon only to the limited extent of proving the memoes like site plan etc. In fact since they were cited witnesses to the memoes, defence counsel should have cross examined to that extent and for the version other than that if cross examined by the defence counsel and they gave out different version not corroborating to the eye witness or other prosecution witnesses, no benefit can be given holding the prosecution case doubtful in favour of the defence. The version given out by afore named trioka witnesses during cross examination by the defence counsel different than stated by other prosecution witnesses as to asking by Ratanlal for searching out deceased persons, being not at all the prosecution case either in the FIR or statements recorded during investigation Under section 161 CrPC, in our considered view, does not render or cast aspersion on the testimony of solitary eye witness Ratanlal (PW 2) so as to hold his presence at the scene of occurrence and sequence thereof shaky. Rather as analysed above even the hostile witnesses have supported the presence of Ratanlal (PW 2) not only at the field but also near the well where Prabhu & Battilal (deceased), Pakhandi and Ratanlal (PW 2) had gone to bathe, and in vicinity of Nala where deceased had gone to case themselves. 50. Rather as analysed above even the hostile witnesses have supported the presence of Ratanlal (PW 2) not only at the field but also near the well where Prabhu & Battilal (deceased), Pakhandi and Ratanlal (PW 2) had gone to bathe, and in vicinity of Nala where deceased had gone to case themselves. 50. It is significant to note that in the instant case, hostility on the part of the some of witnesses including Pakhandi (PW 4) appears to have been as a result of threats by Samay Singh consistently given during investigation so also during trial as has been admitted by the witnesses themselves including Uganti (PW 5) w/o Ratanlal & d/o Pakhandi, and as rightly noticed by the trial Court during recording of their statements while noting demeanour of the witnesses, and putting note in the statement, itself, which has also been taken note of in the impugned judgment of conviction, because among the deceased persons, one of whom is son in-law of hostile witness Pakhandi (PW 4), whose another son in law-is Ratanlal (PW 2) (solitary witness & husband of Uganti (PW 5), therefore, on account of assaults given by the appellants & their companion absconding accused Samay Singh & Shankar, to Prabhu & Battilal (deceased) resulting into their deaths, Pakhandi appears to have got frightened and apprehending out of threats of the accused to kill Ratanlal (his another son in-law) Pakhandi thought it proper to turn himself hostile so as to save his another son in law (PW 2) Samay Singh & his another companion both have not yet been apprehended for the incident in question. 51. As regards the alleged behaviour of solitary witness Ratanlal (PW 2) after the incident disclosed by him in his statement before the court, we are of the view that merely because immediately after the incident he did not rush to the village or point out about the deaths of the two deceased persons to the village people, the circumstances pointed out by the defence counsel as to the abnormal conduct after having wrong out of his statement (PW 2's) are not at all fatal to the prosecution nor do it render his testimony untruthful. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of this solitary witness on all material particulars (supra), nor any part of his evidence has been demolished. 52. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of this solitary witness on all material particulars (supra), nor any part of his evidence has been demolished. 52. We are of the view that no hard and fast rule of universal application with regard to the reaction of a person in a given circumstance can be laid down. When a person happens to see or come across a gruesome and cruel act being perpetrated within his sight then there is a possibility that he may lose his equilibrium and balance of mind and therefore he may remain as a silent spectator till he is able to reconcile himself and then react in his own way. There may be a person who may react by shouting for help while others may even choose to quietly slip away from the place of occurrence giving an impression as if they have seen nothing with a view to avoid their involvement in any way in the fray at the peril of their own life with a zeal to scare away the assailants and save the victim from further assailants. (See Marwadi Kishor Parmanand v. State of Gujarat (supra). In the present case on perusal of the evidence of solitary eye witness Ratanlal (PW 2) we find that he did depose that when he saw the accused assaulting and inflicting blows with Dharia, Gandasi & lathies on the persons of the deceased, and upon hearing hue & cry of the deceased he tried to rush near the place of beating, the accused threatened of dire consequence so he could not move after 10-12 steps and thereby he kept himself away witnessing the incident by standing there for not moving further being afraid of threats of Samay Singh and because of their having lethal weapons in hands. We have appreciated the evidence of solitary witness deposing on material particulars to the sequence of incident, after having due regard to all the surrounding facts and circumstances prevailing at or about the time of occurrence of an incident as disclosed by the eye witness. In our view, some contradictions and omissions even in the evidence of a witness who was actually present and had seen the sequence of occurrence are bound to occur even in the natural course. In our view, some contradictions and omissions even in the evidence of a witness who was actually present and had seen the sequence of occurrence are bound to occur even in the natural course. In the instant case, the facts stated by solitary eye witness Ratanlal (PW 2) are substantially conformed to and are consistent on material points from the facts stated earlier to the police either in FIR or case diary statements and are also consistent in all material details as well as on vital points and therefore, there would be no justification or any valid reason for us and the Court to view his evidence with suspicion or cast any doubt on such evidence. As analysed above, Ratanlal (PW 2) is a wholly reliable witness and his evidence in itself, even without any further corroboration is enough to sustain the conviction of the appellants for the crime they are charged with, inasmuch as we find and as noticed above the evidence of solitary eye witness Ratanlal (PW 2) stands duly corroborated on material aspects from the evidence of prosecution witnesses named above. Considering all the above circumstances in our opinion the conviction of the appellants as well as the sentences imposed upon them on all counts by the trial Court has to be sustained. 53. In the result, this appeal filed by three of accused appellants (Hargyan, Dayaram & Bhim Singh) is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of these appellants as recorded by the trial Court under the impugned judgment are maintained. The appellants are in jail and be retained to serve out the impugned sentences.Appeal dismissed *******